Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
XenoFish

Do Chairs Exist?

30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

Interesting video I found. Thought I would share it.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

Thanks XenoFish, for sharing that interesting video. The narrator demonstrates and  admits that all objects are abstractions, essentially ideas. He also touched on the arbitrariness of separating the various ideas we call objects from one another. A rather elegant solution seems to be that what we call the material universe is one thing, and that that one thing is ideation, essentially thought.

Then, since the universe presumably existed before there were people, or other beings, to think it, we must inquire into the source of that idea.  All the philosophical systems to which the narrator referred seem a tangled web of confusion, by comparison. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Didn’t watch the video, but going to vote you a win just because of the thread title.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I’m rocking the Clash right now, The Magnificent Seven, and digging it, so…not watching a video.  But, IMHO, one doesn’t need to question whether or not the chair exists, we all know it does.  The important question is, what is the nature of the chair?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Papameter says 70% real 20% misidentification and 10% hoax.

  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Try sitting on an ideation or abstraction :) 

This is one of those ideas which is interesting to  explore philosophically, but simply doesn't hold up in practice  (unlike a well made chair ) 

Eg one mind makes a chair from wood.

One way or another the y have to imagine it,  design it, and build it, then test its functionality  

Another mind not only sees the chair, but  recognises it, sits down on it, and it supports his weight

It is why we have to put doors in rooms 

Otherwise, an enlightened mind could walk right through the abstraction, which others saw as a wall 

This is how dreams, which are only constructs of the mind without any physicality ,  are different  from physical/waking  reality.

In a dream you CAN  walk right through a wall although  it takes a bit to learn the technique and maintain the concentration 

That  is because a dream exists ONLY in the mind and, in a dream, a  chair IS only an abstraction or concpet  In a dream you can shape any form of chair (or any other object or being)  you want,  with nothing more than thought and will. 

It is  different  in waking life, however. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Shroud

Too long for me to watch, but from the title it is about the phiosphical question and answer " I think, therefore I am".

Cogito, ergo sum - Wikipedia

Edited by The Silver Shroud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 hours ago, Guyver said:

Didn’t watch the video, but going to vote you a win just because of the thread title.

Not really an argument thing. Saw it, found it interesting, decided to share. That's all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Try sitting on an ideation or abstraction :) 

This is one of those ideas which is interesting to  explore philosophically, but simply doesn't hold up in practice  (unlike a well made chair ) 

Eg one mind makes a chair from wood.

One way or another the y have to imagine it,  design it, and build it, then test its functionality  

Another mind not only sees the chair, but  recognises it, sits down on it, and it supports his weight

It is why we have to put doors in rooms 

Otherwise, an enlightened mind could walk right through the abstraction, which others saw as a wall 

This is how dreams, which are only constructs of the mind without any physicality ,  are different  from physical/waking  reality.

In a dream you CAN  walk right through a wall although  it takes a bit to learn the technique and maintain the concentration 

That  is because a dream exists ONLY in the mind and, in a dream, a  chair IS only an abstraction or concpet  In a dream you can shape any form of chair (or any other object or being)  you want,  with nothing more than thought and will. 

It is  different  in waking life, however. 

The idea of the universe, and all the things in it, including chairs, and their being designed and constructed, would obviously have to be much stronger and more persistent than any idea that could be thought by a person, alone. Otherwise, as you say, what we  are pleased to call the real, material world would be insubstantial, and like a dream.

I strongly suspect that in very limited cases, human thought can have small, sporadic effects on the world-thought, hence the otherwise unexplained effects of psychokinesis.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Yes.   But not always.   Some chairs no longer exist.  And some chairs will exist later.  So, it can get tricky.

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, bison said:

The idea of the universe, and all the things in it, including chairs, and their being designed and constructed, would obviously have to be much stronger and more persistent than any idea that could be thought by a person, alone. Otherwise, as you say, what we  are pleased to call the real, material world would be insubstantial, and like a dream.

I strongly suspect that in very limited cases, human thought can have small, sporadic effects on the world-thought, hence the otherwise unexplained effects of psychokinesis.   

Ah The hive mind.

I'm open to telekinesis/psychokinetics  although it is not one of my talents. 

One mind can influence another.

One mind can even often communicate with another.

One mind can link to,  and communicate  with,  the cosmic consciousness or universal mind 

Those things I know to be true, but  I haven't got any personal evidences that a mind alone can shape reality  (except in dreams)

Of course humans are getting close to this abilty to shape things by thought ,  using computers to interface with machines.  Eg you can do many things these days simply by thinking them, if you  have the right technical interfaces. 

One question which interests me is this 

In a game using dice, i can very often predict the throws of myself and others (even when several dice are involved ) This occurs far more than statistical probability allows fo,r and I have had to stop doing it with my regular game players  because it was so noticeable to them . 

BUT (if it is not simply a weird ongoing coincidence )  am i simply predicting the fall of the dice or influencing it?  I suspect the former, as i have  a lot less luck trying to cause myself or another to roll a specific number 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
On 9/15/2021 at 2:15 AM, bison said:

Thanks XenoFish, for sharing that interesting video. The narrator demonstrates and  admits that all objects are abstractions, essentially ideas. He also touched on the arbitrariness of separating the various ideas we call objects from one another. A rather elegant solution seems to be that what we call the material universe is one thing, and that that one thing is ideation, essentially thought.

Then, since the universe presumably existed before there were people, or other beings, to think it, we must inquire into the source of that idea.  All the philosophical systems to which the narrator referred seem a tangled web of confusion, by comparison. 

When you get to the point that you realise that physics mostly deals with ideas, not things that actually exist, you realise its mostly all garbage.

For instance lets calculate the gravitation attraction between the Earth and the Moon. Well the Earth and Moon are ideas. We assign estimated mass to each idea, and do the calculations, and our answer isn`t correct. But physicists round up to a set number of decimal places to hide the fact they dont have the correct answer.

Even worse when we take 2 actual objects (lets say 2 atoms, because as far as we know they aren`t ideas) relativity doesn`t even come close to giving the gravitational attraction between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
Quote

Well the Earth and Moon are ideas. 

we take 2 actual objects (lets say 2 atoms, because as far as we know they aren`t ideas)

So the Earth and Moon are ideas, but atoms are not, "as far as we know"?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
50 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

When you get to the point that you realise that physics mostly deals with ideas, not things that actually exist, you realise its mostly all garbage.

For instance lets calculate the gravitation attraction between the Earth and the Moon. Well the Earth and Moon are ideas. We assign estimated mass to each idea, and do the calculations, and our answer isn`t correct. But physicists round up to a set number of decimal places to hide the fact they dont have the correct answer.

Even worse when we take 2 actual objects (lets say 2 atoms, because as far as we know they aren`t ideas) relativity doesn`t even come close to giving the gravitational attraction between the two.

If the Earth and the Moon are ideas, then it seems natural to conclude that atoms are, too. 

By the way, science reveals to us that the universe is consistent in its structure, measurable, and understandable, at least to the degree of our mental, and scientific development. That implies far stronger, steadier, and more comprehensive thought than any human mind is capable of.

Relativity theory can not supply quantum-scale answers, and quantum mechanics can not explain the force of gravity, because neither theory is quite correct. We still have a bit of work to do, before we understand the universe, as admirable as is what we have already accomplished in this direction. 

Edited by bison
added information
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 hour ago, bison said:

If the Earth and the Moon are ideas, then it seems natural to conclude that atoms are, too. 

By the way, science reveals to us that the universe is consistent in its structure, measurable, and understandable, at least to the degree of our mental, and scientific development. That implies far stronger, steadier, and more comprehensive thought than any human mind is capable of.

Relativity theory can not supply quantum-scale answers, and quantum mechanics can not explain the force of gravity, because neither theory is quite correct. We still have a bit of work to do, before we understand the universe, as admirable as is what we have already accomplished in this direction. 

I adopt the position where mathematic based physics can neither describe aspects of reality or make accurate predictions about such things. It only works when applied to ideas, and requires us to not look too precisely to realise our answers are wrong. Round them up to a few significant figures and pretend they are correct, kind of thing.

At the heart of the problem are two options:

1. Everything is made out of indivisible building blocks and therefore the irrational numbers present in maths are impossible. So answers with infinite decimal places are nonsensical. The infinite amount of irrational numbers between any two whole numbers is lunacy. And the problem with these irrational numbers means the relationship between two variables in a formula are not the same as the relationships between to material things.

2. Things can be reduced forever into smaller and smaller quantities. Which funnily enough completely invalidates particle physics!

The people who think maths is real or infallible are living in a fantasy reality. Maths takes a few variables, puts them in a box, and pretends that reality outside of the box doesnt exist. Putting aside the above problems look at it this way. How can the gravitational attraction between two planets be accurately calculated, or their movements accurately predicted, unless the formula took into account every single particle in the universe? General Relativity cannot even cope with more than 2 planets lmao.

This problem exists with all algebraic formula - stick it in a box and pretend nothing outside the box impacts it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

If the nature of the chair is an illusion, we are simulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

That’s what I’m saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Have you ever thought about what’s on the other side of a black hole?  I’m just asking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 hours ago, bison said:

If the Earth and the Moon are ideas, then it seems natural to conclude that atoms are, too. 

By the way, science reveals to us that the universe is consistent in its structure, measurable, and understandable, at least to the degree of our mental, and scientific development. That implies far stronger, steadier, and more comprehensive thought than any human mind is capable of.

Relativity theory can not supply quantum-scale answers, and quantum mechanics can not explain the force of gravity, because neither theory is quite correct. We still have a bit of work to do, before we understand the universe, as admirable as is what we have already accomplished in this direction. 

Earth, moon, and atoms, certainly are ideas (ie constructs) in human minds. However they are ALSO real things 

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is ONLY a concept or idea,  albeit one  shared by millions. It has no   independent  physical existence  like atoms. earth, and moon, do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Have you ever thought about what’s on the other side of a black hole?  I’m just asking.

Hi Guyver

Likely someone on the other side wondering the same thing.:P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I wonder how many in this thread actually watched the video before commenting? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
On 9/14/2021 at 9:15 PM, bison said:

Thanks XenoFish, for sharing that interesting video. The narrator demonstrates and  admits that all objects are abstractions, essentially ideas. He also touched on the arbitrariness of separating the various ideas we call objects from one another. A rather elegant solution seems to be that what we call the material universe is one thing, and that that one thing is ideation, essentially thought.

Then, since the universe presumably existed before there were people, or other beings, to think it, we must inquire into the source of that idea.  All the philosophical systems to which the narrator referred seem a tangled web of confusion, by comparison. 

The take away I got is that a chair is a chair, because we call it a chair. Other than that it is stuff. When we name stuff we are describing it or it's function. Even if it's an abstract idea like God. 

I don't know why this thread started to go into woo land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

Well . . . Dr. Niels Bohr, physicist, and the founder of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics said this:

'Everything we call real is made of things that can not be regarded as real'. 

The quantum 'particles' out of which our supposed physical reality is constructed are fleeting, and indeterminate in their basic  properties such as position and movement. If anything else in our experience behaved so, we would rightly dismiss it as phantasmal and at odds with what we are pleased to regard as our material reality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.